Swift.

Point 1, as Tholozor said, dont use MED PRF. Use interleaved or HI Point 2, now you are seeing why having MSI in hornet might not be such a bad thing eh? You have those surv tracks clear as day from the awacs so you should be able to set the L&S to those targets regardless of radar performance.

I (along with many others I'm sure) have always had difficulty with engaging the autopilot in the DCS hornet. Because the way it has been modelled to where the stick needs to be perfectly centred for it to engage, it means those with smooth centred sticks will have a hard time getting the stick to that perfect centre. The options to solve this so far are to increase the deadzone for the whole stick, which will ruin the experience in all other aspects. Or to just not use the AP. The suggestion I'm making therefore, is that we have a special option for hornet where we can have either: - Toggle 'Realistic AP engagement' ON or OFF, where ON is perfect centre required and OFF is AP engagement not limited by stick position. - A engagement deadzone slider, where we can adjust how big the deadzone should be so we can account for the imperfection in our sim hardware. As a side note, I'm not 100% convinced the AP engagement requiring perfectly centred stick position is necessarily correct. However if it is then the above suggestion would allow the option for those that need it.

Wait so you started off complaining about not being able to load lau-127 directly onto the pylons and now you are saying you don't even want to use amraams at all? I'm confused, what is you angle here

Yeah hornet is a great example of ignorance is bliss. And I agree, the 40% (or whatever value it is) of completion we have is the best 40% in DCS.

Welcome to todays tutorial on how to make mountains out of molehills.

There is something, you can load single amraams right now and that's how they do it IRL. Another thing that might be worth considering, the Swiss hornets have a completely different wing to everyone else. Notice how they don't have the wing fold either.

Perhaps, perhaps not. It doesn't really affect anything if it does assign an L&S with WonW.

People have been saying for a long time now that in general the notch in all DCS radars is too big

How soon after landing is this happening, because it might be possible for you to be setting a track currently going into MEM as the L&S (even though the MEM logic is also guffed)

There are more differences, between Swiss hornets and the supposed USN/USMC hornet we have, than just the pylons. The thing to remember is that ED aren't selling 'A Hornet' they are selling 'A Hornet as operated by USN/USMC circa 2005 using MC OFP 19C where possible and taking slight liberties in timeline when necessary'. Them providing the ability to mount a completely different pylon and load a different launcher configuration on that pylon and then have the SMS recognise that weapon configuration, whilst there is the ability to provide the correct and accurate version, would be outside the scope. If they did that, then you have to start looking at why we don't also have the UFCD and MPCDs of the swiss hornets. Why don't we have the HAT functionality that MC OFP 21X provided. etc etc There are lots of egregious things still outstanding on the Hornet ED have sold us, them sacrificing 'gameplay' for the reasons of real weapon loadouts is not one of them.

As I stated its possible on a different airframe than the one we have.

If you see it happening again, screenshots videos tracks etc all help

Centreline tanks not feeding eh? Bleed air off, fuel probe not fully retracted, Weight on Wheels. Any of those?

It wasnt a yes no question, it was an either or. I can see that the fuel bit has been initiated by the Boxed FLBIT on the fuel DDI page. Activation of this BIT will cause a master caution and FUEL LO warning to appear on the Left DDI within 13 seconds, these cautions will remain for at least 1 minute and will be removed as the BIT concludes with the FLBIT automatically being unboxed. If you are certain that you aren't activating the FLBIT manually, then it might be a double click issue as the FLBIT pushbutton is the same as the pushbutton to enter the FUEL page

Unfortunately not. Back to the original bug, was the fuel bit initiated before or after the fuel low caution appeared?

They are very useful for sharing steps for reproduceable bugs. Not so good for sharing hours and hours of flight.

Im wondering whats causing this bug now, because TK PRES LO indicates low tank pressurization above 20,000ft. And I don't think it can be a coincidence that thats where the bug occurs. I wonder if ED have attempted to model some tank pressurization system and its mis calibrated or something

Ok guys, I think its clear SUBS17 is actually trolling now. Let's just leave it at that, because this is gonna devolve otherwise.

Other than (as GB wrote earlier in this post) Blue Angels

Yeah as Marlan described, it would start as a bottom HAFU with the L&S symbol to show that you have an offboard only track as the L&S: Then when the radar begins to contribute (aka when the radar can 'see' the aircraft) you will see a radar contribution circle appear and the top HAFU appear: It will still keep the L&S star and still keep the bottom HAFU because its still the L&S and there are still offboard contributors. And then if you wanted a better quality radar contribution, ie going to STT from RWS, then you could command STT on the L&S by castling into the radar display with TDC priority already assigned, or by cursoring over the L&S and depressing TDC. But the HAFU wouldn't change.

Most (maybe all?) IFR approaches aren't supposed to be for 0 visibility. Yes an ILS approach will give you a lower ceiling and visibility requirement. But Tacan approaches are perfectly valid. An example of the differences: ILS or LOC/DME X 21L at Nellis AFB is 200ft ceiling 1/2 mile visibility minimum TACAN X 21L at Nellis AFB is 700ft ceiling 1/2 mile visibility minimum And if its needed, you always have GCA and PAR. Additionally, thanks for being the reason that so many of the valued SMEs in this community eventually just leave. Because when they do pipe up with their gouge, some people just spit in their face and say they are lying.

Worth noting that the AV8B should also have the multiple release pattern centred around the displayed impact point.

It sounds like this goes back to one of the major deficiencies with the current 'MSI' modelling, that donor only tracks can't be set as L&S. Is this a surface track you are trying to L&S, or have I missed something. You started off talking about AG

I've seen a similar intermittent bug going on with undesignation. I think in this case 'works fine for me' might not cut it to make this problem go away. This does fall under the unfortunate category of 'bugs that are almost impossible to reproduce' though

I suppose you could see it that way, or just that the AI radars have a ridiculous beam width. A friend of mine tested it a while ago and I think there were some that had a 'beam width' of 90 degrees either side. But yeah, on the whole. ED Gib proper RWR modelling